Do you agree with Aquinas?

[ssancho]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I disagree.

Judges 21:25 “… everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”

This seems to mean that conscience can be wrong. The passage is referring to a chaotic and lawless time in ancient Israel, when everyone just did, not what they felt like doing, but what they thought was right by conscience.

 

[LiamQ]

Judges 21:25 “… everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”

I’m not entirely sure this isn’t just a Hebraism, and a way of communicating folks did whatever they wanted because no one could enforce law and order.

I’m not sure this is some sort of philosophical commentary on how they pursued what they thought was good, rather than willingly pursuing evil.

 

[Bradski]

Does this mean that anything done sincerely is righteous because it is sincere? That is, can we sincerely deceive ourselves, and be righteous about that?

You cannot feel guilty about a belief if it sincerely held. Whether you are correct in your belief has no bearing on that.

 

[LiamQ]

I understand that willingness to commit evil is required to do evil, but is the willingness actually the sin, or is it the fulfillment of the willingness that is the sin?

Willingness to offend God to such an extent that one is separated from Him is a species of sin in and of itself. How one comes to accomplish this is irrelevant, whether it be by viewing pornography or mistakenly thinking wearing red is gravely offensive to Him.

But we can take it a step further.

If we have an unresolved doubt whether something is a mortal sin, but choose to do it anyhow, we could be culpable for the same species of sin as described above, and we are at least objectively guilty for it.

That’s part of the reason why acting on a doubtful conscience is a big no-no.

 

[LiamQ]

You cannot feel guilty about a belief if it sincerely held. Whether you are correct in your belief has no bearing on that.

Obviously, feeling guilty is an emotional state, and plenty of psychological disorders nullify what you assert her.

 

[Bradski]

Obviously, feeling guilty is an emotional state, and plenty of psychological disorders nullify what you assert her.

I couldn’t imagine that I would have had to have written: 'Assuming that you have no psychological disorders, then…you cannot feel guilty about a belief if it is sincerely held’.

 

[LiamQ]

Touche, Brad.

 

[e_c]

Let’s look at that again.

This seems to make moral evil relative. Isn’t evil an objective thing, rather than something relative to time or circumstance?

I understand that willingness to commit evil is required to do evil, but is the willingness actually the sin, or is it the fulfillment of the willingness that is the sin?

Eve was willing to eat the forbidden fruit, but was she not innocent until she actually ate it?

It’s more than a general “willingness to do evil.” Unless you mean an intentional bent toward doing evil things, then we are merely talking about “vice,” which is a habitual inclination toward sin, but since it is not sin it carries no guilt.

It is a PARTICULAR willingness to do this evil thing right now. Consenting to evil is its own sin. Read Thomas on venial sins and whether willfully consenting to them is its own sin. He says it is.

 

[John_Martin]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Agree
“Sin” is a deceptive symbol in English - totally non-intuitive of correct meaning.

To “sin” is to “miss the mark” in Greek and even Hebrew in on of the words for sin.
A judgement of conscience is like the “mark” or “target”, and is what should be aimed at.

The conscience is the sighting mechanism for act, and if a person ignores it, that person is ignoring the target, ignoring the mark, and therefore missing the mark, or as we foolishly term it the person “sins” in his own understanding of his being; he has failed and acted with defect.

 

[inocente]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Agree. Thomas makes a number of logical arguments why you must always obey your conscience, concluding “Consequently, conscience, no matter how false it is, obliges under pain of sin” … “it is also a sin to act against conscience in any way” … “conscience binds, no matter how false it may be” … “For conscience is said to bind in so far as one sins if he does not follow his conscience, but not in the sense that he [necessarily] acts correctly if he does follow it.”

• dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer17.htm#4

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You cannot feel guilty about a belief if it sincerely held. Whether you are correct in your belief has no bearing on that.

If there is a God, and you have sincerely deceived yourself that there is no God, how is that not a sin?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Agree. Thomas makes a number of logical arguments why you must always obey your conscience, concluding “Consequently, conscience, no matter how false it is, obliges under pain of sin” … “it is also a sin to act against conscience in any way” … “conscience binds, no matter how false it may be” … “For conscience is said to bind in so far as one sins if he does not follow his conscience, but not in the sense that he [necessarily] acts correctly if he does follow it.”

• dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer17.htm#4

My conscience is telling me St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments are incomplete, lacking in compassion/love, and are just too simplistic for such a topic.

Take for example:

1. Observance of the legal prescriptions of the Mosaic law in the new dispensation of grace was not indifferent but intrinsically evil. Hence, Galatians (5:2) says: “If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Nevertheless, conscience prescribing the observance of circumcision was binding. Hence, in the same Epistle (5:3) we read: “And I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Therefore, a false conscience binds in things intrinsically evil.
   dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer17.htm#4

This bolded statement does not follow St. Paul’s meaning to the Galatians. Paul is saying that if you are going to circumcise yourself out of a (false) loyalty to God, then you are also bound to follow the rest of the Mosaic Law because you would be under a curse (according to Dt 27:26) if you didn’t. Paul is not saying that because you mistakenly follow Mosaic Law that somehow you are sinning against your conscience if you don’t follow through all the way.

If the Galatians were indeed duped by Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, how the would Thomas reconcile that with his later statements on false precepts not being binding?

 

[o_mlly]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Certain judgements of conscience oblige us to act or not act. Uncertain judgements of conscience oblige us to not act.

Sin is always in the evil will. If one’s certain conscience erroneously judges an act to be good that is evil and acts accordingly then one commits no subjective sin, does not possess an evil will and incurs no culpability.

If one’s certain conscience erroneously judges an act to be evil that is indifferent or good and acts accordingly then one commits subjective sin, does possess an evil will and incurs culpability.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sin is always in the evil will. If one’s certain conscience erroneously judges an act to be good that is evil and acts accordingly then one commits no subjective sin, does not possess an evil will and incurs no culpability.

So if a Catholic politician declares abortion to be a right that must be protected does he possess an evil will? Is he culpable?

If one “erroneously judges an act to be good that is evil and acts accordingly” how does one determine the difference between acting erroneously and deceiving oneself that one is acting righteously?

That is, when the Catholic politician defends the right to abortion, is he acting righteously if he is deceiving himself that he is acting righteously when he is only acting that way to secure votes of the pro-abortion lobby?

 

[o_mlly]

So if a Catholic politician declares abortion to be a right that must be protected does he possess an evil will? Is he culpable?

Yes, if his certain conscience informs him that direct abortion is always and everywhere an evil act or his uncertain conscience informs him that direct abortion is possibly evil.

No, if his certain conscience informs him that direct abortion is never an evil act.

If a politician supports abortion rights then he is not a faithful Catholic although he/she may wish to call themselves such. The teaching that direct abortion is intrinsically evil is not ambiguous and has been the constant teaching of the Church.

Bishops need to act; faithful Catholics need to vote.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

“Every judgment of conscience, be it right or wrong, be it about things evil in themselves or morally indifferent, is obligatory, in such wise that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

I don’t believe it applies to scrupulous people, in case there are any reading this thread and freaking out.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

It is a form of mental illness. The right psychiatrist and medication can relieve a lot of that suffering.

I had scruples. I agree that the scrupulous need help, I don’t believe that all need medication and / or a psychiatrist. I overcame it by talking to my dad any time I had an attack of scruples and eventually reading the writings of a priest who understood the affliction. It depends on the individual. They most definitely need a priest or spiritual director to talk to that understands the condition. I didn’t know of any priests but my dad had had scruples before me so he understood.

 

[Aloysium]

I had scruples. I agree that the scrupulous need help, I don’t believe that all need medication and / or a psychiatrist. I overcame it by talking to my dad any time I had an attack of scruples and eventually reading the writings of a priest who understood the affliction. It depends on the individual. They most definitely need a priest or spiritual director to talk to that understands the condition. I didn’t know of any priests but my dad had had scruples before me so he understood.

Healing takes many forms.

I would like to add however, regarding those of us who do need to see a psychiatrist, that it is not a sign of personal weakness and definitely not something that one should be embarrassed about. Alternatively, medication is not a cure for our spiritual ills.

 

[Coder]

“…that he who acts against his conscience always sins.” Thomas Aquinas

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

This is similar to St. Paul teaching that anything that is not based on faith is a sin.

So, I would propose to St. Aquinas that the culpability for sin is based on the level of faith which is not a “per event” thing but how we thirsted for and have accepted grace.

Didn’t God harden Pharoah’s heart - after that - what kind of a conscience did he have?

 

[Bradski]

If there is a God, and you have sincerely deceived yourself that there is no God, how is that not a sin?

Notwithstanding willful ignorance (and there’s a lot of it about), holding a belief sincerely if that belief is not correct is not deceiving yourself. It just means that you are wrong. Your question should read:

‘If there is a God, and you have sincerely believed that there is no God, how is that not a sin?’

There’s not, I have and it isn’t.

In passing, if I’m wrong, then I’ll get the chance to find out. If you are wrong, you won’t.